Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the review was August 24, 2018. This paragraph and the giving of the notice of completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

The review documents the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ evaluation of the amended environmental assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Indigenous communities into consideration.

Summary of our review

Who

NextBridge Infrastructure LP (NextBridge)

What

Ministry review of an amended environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed East-West Tie (EWT) Transmission Project (the EWT project).

The EWT project is an approximately 450-kilometre (km) long double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that will connect the Lakehead transformer station in the Municipality of Shuniah near the City of Thunder Bay to the Wawa transformer station located east of the Municipality of Wawa.

The EWT project will be constructed in a right-of-way (ROW) that is typically up to 64-metre-wide with access roads being constructed or upgraded to facilitate construction as needed. Construction camps are anticipated to be established in proximity to the City of Thunder Bay, Township of Nipigon, Township of Terrace Bay, Town of Marathon, Township of White River, and Municipality of Wawa.

When

EA timelines

EA submitted: July 25, 2017
EA comment period (7 weeks): July 25, 2017 to September 12, 2017
Amended EA submitted: February 16, 2018
Amended EA comment period: February 16, 2018 to March 29, 2018

Proposed project timeline

In-service operation date: 2020

Where

The project runs between the Lakehead Transformer Station in the Municipality of Shuniah near the City of Thunder Bay to the Wawa Transformer Station located east of the Municipality of Wawa.

The majority of the EWT project is located on provincial Crown land. From west to east, the EWT project traverses the Lakehead, Black Spruce, Lake Nipigon, Kenogami, Pic River, Big Pic, White River, and Algoma Forest Management Units.

Why

The EWT project has been identified as a priority project by the Province of Ontario and a needed project by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to meet future electricity demand in northwestern Ontario.

Conclusions

The ministry review concludes that the amended EA was prepared in accordance with the approved terms of reference and the Environmental Assessment Act and contained sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed EWT project. The review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks must decide whether or not to approve the amended EA.

NextBridge has provided adequate information in the amended EA, together with additional supporting documentation that assesses potential environmental effects of the proposed EWT project.

However, ministry staff and NextBridge continue to engage relevant government agencies, project stakeholders and Indigenous communities on technical comments specific to field surveys, site specific mitigation and Indigenous consultation. Ongoing discussions to resolve technical matters, together with proposed conditions of approval and proponent commitments should ensure that the environment remains protected as a result of the EWT project.

1. Environmental assessment process

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) provides a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the EAA sets out the general contents for the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA), as well as the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (ministry) evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural, built and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Indigenous communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and guidelines of the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Completing the EA process involves two separate steps—the terms of reference (ToR) and the EA. The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a ToR to the ministry for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

The ToR for the EWT project was submitted for approval to the ministry on February 28, 2014, and an amended ToR was submitted on May 22, 2014. On August 28, 2014, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the Minister) approved NextBridge’s amended ToR for the EWT project.

The amended ToR established the framework for the preparation of the EA including how NextBridge would assess environmental effects and provided an initial project description, rationale for the undertaking and description of the environment to be further discussed in the EA report. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process with members of the public, project stakeholders and Indigenous communities.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision.

The EWT project is subject to the EAA due to the voltage and length of the proposed transmission line: greater than 115 kV and equal or longer than 50 km. Based on these factors, the EWT project was deemed a Category C (individual EA) project in accordance with the Electricity Projects Regulation, O. Reg. 116/01, made under the EAA, as well as the Guide to EA Requirements for Electricity Projects, 2011.

On July 25, 2017, the EA report was submitted to the ministry for a 7-week comment period, which ended on September 12, 2017. Once submitted to the ministry, the EA was circulated to a Government Review Team (GRT), which includes federal, provincial and local agencies. The GRT reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. The public and Indigenous communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking as described in the EA.

Based on the ministry’s and other agency’s significant concerns relating to the environmental assessment methodology and level of Indigenous consultation for the EWT project, the ministry indicated that an amended EA was required.

Resulting from this, on October 2, 2017 NextBridge notified the ministry of its intent to amend the final EA report in order to ensure ministry concerns were addressed in a revised EA report. On February 16, 2018 NextBridge submitted an amended EA report to address feedback received from the GRT, Indigenous communities, and interested persons on the final EA. The comment period for the amended EA ended on March 29, 2018.

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the ministry review (review). The review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Indigenous community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the review when making a decision; the review itself is not the decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision on the undertaking described in the EA will be made following the end of the five-week review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Indigenous communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A notice of completion of the ministry review has been published on the NextBridge website indicating that this review has been completed and is available for a 5-week comment period.

Copies of the review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Indigenous communities for a 5-week review period. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the amended EA comment period were sent electronic copies of the review.

2. The proposed undertaking

Background

The existing East-West Tie is an approximately 400 km double-circuit 230 kV transmission line corridor that runs from the Wawa transformer station and the Lakehead transmission station near Thunder Bay. The expansion of the existing 230 kV East-West Tie was identified as a priority project by the Province of Ontario, and a needed project by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to meet future electricity demand in northwestern Ontario.

This recommendation, identified in the Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) June 2011 and October 2013 reports, was based on technical, economic and other considerations. The OPA initially specified a targeted in-service date of the expanded East-West Tie in the first half of 2018, which was revised in 2014 to an in-service date of 2020. A competitive bidding process was held by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to select the “designated transmitter” to develop the entity that will develop the EWT project.

The proponent

NextBridge Infrastructure LP (NextBridge), also known by the name of its general partner Upper Canada Transmission, Inc., was the successful bidder and was awarded the opportunity to develop the EWT project by the OEB in August 2013. NextBridge is a partnership between affiliates of NextEra Energy Canada, Enbridge Inc., and omers Infrastructure Management Inc. (formerly Borealis Infrastructure), and would be responsible for constructing, owning and maintaining the East-West Tie project.

Partnership with Indigenous communities

The Province of Ontario indicated in the 2013 (and 2017) Long Term Energy Plan that Indigenous communities have an interest in a wide range of economic benefits from future transmission projects, including procurement opportunities, skills training and commercial partnerships; and that the Province expects transmission companies looking to develop new transmission lines to involve potentially affected Indigenous communities, where commercially feasible and where there is an interest.

Resulting from this, Supercom Industries LP (Supercom) was identified as the entity through which the Proximate First Nations will execute related economic and employment opportunities. Supercom was formed in early 2016 and is a 100% First Nation owned business and is a partnership between Fort William First Nation, Red Rock Indian Band, Pays Plat First Nation, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, Pic Mobert First Nation and Michipicoten First Nation, and Supercom Industries Ltd., the general partner corporation owned by the same six First Nations. These are the six First Nations along the northern shore of Lake Superior (the "Proximate First Nations") whose collective territories comprise the route of the proposed EWT project.

Supercom was formed by the Proximate First Nations identifying their purpose as to balance regional prosperity, provide a responsible approach to the environment, and successful project delivery, with the understanding that success in any one of these areas relies on the others. Supercom is proceeding with the formation of a parallel not-for profit corporation that will be used, as required, to deliver non-profit services (anticipated to be primarily focused on education and training initiatives) for the benefit of the six Proximate First Nations through a services agreement with Supercom, which is currently under development. Supercom notes that the partnership between the Proximate Nations in relation to the EWT project is truly an unprecedented regional cooperation initiative within this region and will be essential to ensuring the spirit and undertakings of Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan with respect to Aboriginal communities can be realized.

Description of proposed undertaking

As detailed above NextBridge is proposing to construct, own and maintain the EWT project. The proposed EWT project is an approximately 450 km long double-circuit 230 kV transmission line that will connect the Lakehead Transformer Station in the Municipality of Shuniah near the City of Thunder Bay to the Wawa Transformer Station located east of the Municipality of Wawa. A map of the EWT project is provided below in Figure 1.

If EAA approval is granted, the EWT project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA and any proposed conditions of approval. In addition, NextBridge must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

The major EWT project components include:

  • a new, approximately 450 km long double-circuit 230 kV transmission line and right-of-way (ROW) connecting the Lakehead transformer station to the Wawa transformer station (with a connection at the Marathon transformer station)
  • a ROW corridor with a typical width of 64 metres, which will be cleared of vegetation and will require permanent easement
  • temporary and permanent access roads
  • storage yards
  • laydown yards
  • construction camps
  • construction easements

The EWT project includes the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the above EWT project components. EWT project activities include:

  • site preparation, including clearing of vegetation, grading, and stripping of topsoil, where required
  • construction of new access roads and improvements to existing roads
  • construction of temporary workspaces (i.e., laydown yards, construction camps, storage yards, and construction easements)
  • transportation of construction equipment and materials along the ROW
  • construction of the transmission line, including structure foundation excavation, structure assembly and erection, and conductor stringing and tensioning
  • construction decommissioning (i.e., the process of safely removing infrastructure from active use, whether it be temporary or permanent) of the temporary workspaces, clean-up and reclamation
  • operation and maintenance

The ROW width will vary at some locations based on the anticipated location of structures, the length of span, the terrain, soil conditions and anticipated line blowout (i.e., the horizontal displacement of a conductor, due to wind). The ROW width is narrower in some locations to accommodate the crossing of sensitive features or constraints, and wider in other locations to accommodate particularly challenging crossing locations

Transformer stations

The EWT project will tie-in to three existing transformer stations (e.g. Lakehead, Marathon, and Wawa), which will require new and/or modified transmission structures. Hydro One Networks Inc. (Hydro One) will connect and tie-in the transmission line to the transformer stations, and is responsible for obtaining the environmental permits and approvals for such activities. As such, the tie-in activities were not included in the EWT project description for the purpose of the EWT amended EA report. It should be noted that as per Section 12(2) of the EAA, permits and approvals required for the transmission stations will not be issued until a Minister’s decision has been made of the proposed EWT project.

Proposed timelines for the undertaking

A preliminary construction schedule has proposed that the work be completed over approximately 24 months and divided into six construction segments, with staggered start dates planned sequentially from east to west across the transmission line ROW, with some exceptions. Non-sequential progress is generally proposed to accommodate seasonal windows and ground conditions (e.g. areas that are very wet may be moved up or delayed in the schedule to accommodate seasonal windows), and timing restrictions for sensitive species. Details regarding construction staging and sequencing will be refined in ongoing discussions with regulators as they confirm the restricted activity periods for certain activities, such as clearing.

The EWT project will be operated for an indeterminate time period and retirement (or decommissioning) is not anticipated. Should decommissioning activities eventually be considered for some or all EWT project components, decommissioning will be planned and conducted in accordance with the relevant standards and regulatory requirements in effect at that time.

If EAA approval is granted, the project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA and any conditions of approval, and will include the EWT project components outlined above. In addition, NextBridge must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Current environmental context

The proposed undertaking will be located in the Province of Ontario and extends from the Municipality of Shuniah near the City of Thunder Bay to east of the Municipality of Wawa. Specifically, the undertaking begins outside of the Hydro One Lakehead transformer station, crosses or travels close by the municipalities/townships of Thunder Bay, Shuniah, Dorion, Red Rock, Nipigon, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, and Marathon, and the Pays Plat First Nation Reserve, before ending outside the Marathon transmission station located in the Town of Marathon. From the Marathon transmission station, the new transmission line crosses the areas within the boundaries of the Town of Marathon, Township of White River, Municipality of Wawa (formerly known as the Township of Michipicoten), and Michipicoten First Nation Reserve, and terminates outside of the Wawa transmission station.

The general location of the undertaking and certain technical specifications were determined by the OEB with local refinements to the location of the EWT project have taken place as a result of consultation (refer to Section 3.3.2 of the amended EA). To note, a majority of the EWT project is located on provincial Crown land and from west to east, the undertaking traverses the Lakehead, Black Spruce, Lake Nipigon, Kenogami, Pic River, Big Pic, White River, and Algoma Forest Management Units within the Boreal and Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest regions of northwest Ontario.

There is an existing 230 kV transmission line that parallels a majority of the proposed EWT project except where it diverts to the northwest around the community of Dorion and Loon Lake and where it diverts around Pukaskwa Park to the northeast (routes eastward from Marathon to White River and then south from White River to just east of Pukaskwa National Park where it aligns to the existing EWT transmission line going southeast towards Wawa). A map of the proposed EWT project is provided in Figure 1.

The undertaking intersects seven eco-districts located in the Lake Abitibi, Nipigon, Temagami, and Pigeon River ecoregions of the Ontario Shield Eco-zone. The western portion of the EWT project crosses the Animikie Basin and the Nipigon Embayment of the Southern Craton. The central and eastern portions of the EWT project are located in the Wawa Sub-province. The geology, terrain, and soils of the undertaking is largely underlain by granitic or gneissic bedrock, with intrusive areas of less acidic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rock and formations of basalt and other volcanic rocks. Greenstone, siltstone, and shale are also present in the study area for the undertaking.

For more details about the current environmental context for the project can be found in Sections 6 to 21 (Description of the Existing Environment) of the amended EA.

Figure 1: East-West Tie transmission project location

This map displays the East-West Tie Transmission Project Location. The location of the EWT project runs between the Lakehead Transformer Station in the Municipality of Shuniah to the Wawa Transformer Station located east of the Municipality of Wawa. The EWT project generally parallels the existing East-West Tie transmission line except near Dorion/Loon Lake where it is runs to the northwest.

Additionally, the EWT project avoids going through Pukaskwa National Park and routes eastward from Marathon to White River and then south from White River to just east of Pukaskwa National Park where it aligns to the existing EWT transmission line going southeast towards Wawa. The map also identifies features such as other nearby cities, First Nation communities, existing roads and water bodies.

View a larger version of this map (PNG)

Figure 2: Double-circuit guyed-Y structure

This image displays a typical double-circuit guyed-Y structure that will be used for the East-West Tie transmission project.

3. Results of the ministry review

The review provides the analysis of the amended EA. The review is not intended to summarize the amended EA, nor present the information found in the amended EA. For information on the decision-making process, refer to the amended EA itself. The amended EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

As noted above, the ToR serves as a framework for how a proponent will address the legislated requirements of the EAA when preparing an environmental assessment; and, sets forth how an EA will be prepared. An EA must be prepared in accordance with an approved ToR.

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the amended EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry concludes that the amended EA followed the framework set out in the approved amended ToR, addressed the commitments made in the approved amended ToR, and demonstrated how the required components of the EAA have been met. Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the amended ToR requirements have been addressed in the amended EA.

The following is the ministry’s analysis of the key requirements of the EA and how they have been addressed. Appendix A of this review includes a detailed summary of the ministry’s analysis and identifies how the requirements of the EAA have been addressed.

Purpose and rationale for the undertaking

The amended EA report outlines that the expansion of the existing 230 kV EWT was identified as a priority project by the Province of Ontario, and a needed project by the IESO in order to meet future electricity demand in northwestern Ontario. The purpose of initiating the EA process is to seek approval under the EAA for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the EWT project.

For additional information regarding the need for the EWT project please refer to Section 1.5 of the amended EA report, entitled “Need for the Project”.

Study area

The amended EA identifies a defined geographic area that was studied as part of the EA process. The study area represents the geographic boundaries that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by an undertaking and alternatives being considered during the EA process. The study area has been defined as a portion of land approximately 450 kilometres in length and 64 metres in width that connects the Lakehead transformer station in the Municipality of Shuniah near the city of Thunder Bay to the Wawa transformer station located east of the Municipality of Wawa.

The EWT project footprint is the preferred route ROW, laydown yards, storage yards, construction camps, construction easements, and new access roads. More details are provided below in Table 2. For more information about the area that was studied as part of the EA process please refer to Section 5.2.2, Table 5-3 of the amended EA report, entitled “Overview of Study Areas”.

Table 2: study area (project footprint)

Preferred route ROW = 2,813 hectares (h)
Laydown yards = 371 h
Storage yards = 48 h
Construction camps = 19 h
Construction easements = 24 h
New access roads = 214 h
Total area = 3,490 h

Description of the environment

The amended EA provides a description of the existing conditions within the EA study area and includes sufficient detail about each of the components of the environment as defined under the EAA, which include:

  • natural environment
  • social environment
  • economic environment
  • cultural environment
  • built environment

For the purpose of the amended EA review the following environmental components were considered:

  • geology, soils and terrain
  • surface water
  • groundwater
  • air quality
  • greenhouse gases
  • acoustic environment
  • vegetation and wetlands
  • fish and fish habitat
  • wildlife and wildlife habitat
  • archaeological resources
  • cultural heritage resources
  • indigenous current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes
  • socio-economics
  • non-traditional land and resource use
  • visual environment
  • human health

For a detailed description of the environment that makes up the amended EA study area please refer to the “Description of the Existing Environment” sub-section in Sections 6 to 21 of the amended EA.

Assessment of alternatives

Section 6.1(2) of the EAA states that proponents are to consider alternatives in the EA of an undertaking. There are two types of alternatives:

  • alternatives to the undertaking
  • alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking

Both types of alternatives are defined and evaluated in this section.

The amended ToR for the EWT project indicates that the approach for the EWT project will be a focused EA in accordance with subsections 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the EAA. NextBridge’s evaluation of alternatives in the amended EA meets the requirements of subsection 6.1(2), which includes an assessment of the “alternative methods” and the “do nothing” alternative, but does not include an assessment of other “alternatives to” the EWT project as this planning process was already completed by the Ontario Power Authority (now the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)).

As indicated in the amended ToR, the amended EA used a screening assessment of alternatives to the EWT project (do nothing vs. proceed with the project) and this is summarized in Table 3-1 (Section 3.2.3) of the amended EA report. Nine screening questions were used as a means to carry out the initial evaluation of the alternatives to the EWT project. These questions complement the qualitative discussion provided in Section 3.2.4 of the amended EA.

As indicated in the amended ToR for the EWT project, the amended EA included a comparative evaluation of the undertaking against the “do nothing” alternative in order to provide confirmation that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of proceeding with the undertaking.

Section 6.1 of the amended ToR indicates that the OEB set the locational criteria for the EWT project in their competitive bid process stating that the preferred route must connect the Lakehead transmission station, near Thunder Bay, with the Wawa transmission station, near Wawa. A further stipulation was that the undertaking must connect with the Marathon transmission station, near Marathon.

The amended ToR also notes that new linear corridors are preferred to be located adjacent to existing linear corridors rather than new greenfield routes as per the Provincial Policy Statement. Resulting from this and as indicated in the amended ToR, the amended EA identified suitable corridors and evaluated them in terms of their environmental, social, economic, and technical attributes in order to select a preferred route.

The amended EA also discussed the alternative methods that that incorporated specific concerns identified by property owners, local and Indigenous communities, or other stakeholders, including to avoid or minimize EWT project effects on an environmental or socio-economic feature (i.e. as a mitigation measure). The following alternative methods were evaluated in Section 3 of the amended EA:

  • alternative route segments
  • local route refinements
  • alternative siting of transmission structures
  • alternative transmission structure types
  • alternative access and construction plan
  • alternative siting of laydown yards and construction camps

As indicated in the amended ToR, the amended EA provided an alternative route assessment which was focused on the evaluation of route alternatives to determine the preliminary preferred route. This alternative route assessment used the criteria and indicators provided in the approved amended ToR to identify the preferred route from an environmental, socio-economic and technical perspective.

The natural environment criteria discussed in the amended EA generally included minimizing effects to features such as wetlands, water bodies, wildlife and protected areas. Socio-economic criteria include maximizing conformity with local land use policy, and minimizing effects to features such as residences, camps, recreational properties, tourist areas, commercial and industrial developments, built-up areas, mines and other infrastructure, constrained infrastructure corridors, and Indigenous traditional land used for traditional activities, to the extent practicable.

Feedback received from consultation events, Indigenous engagement and public consultation activities, including comments received during the public review of the amended ToR, were also considered in the alternative route assessment. Cost was also reviewed from a technical (constructability) perspective. Additional data, such as information from Indigenous communities relating to knowledge and values in traditional territory, and from private land owners where access has been granted, as well as comments and concerns from ministry representatives, was also incorporated to refine the preferred route.

Evaluation of environmental effects

The amended EA includes an explanation about the methods and studies used to identify, assess and evaluate the potential environmental effects from the undertaking and the alternatives being considered as part of the EA process. This includes a summary of the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment by the alternatives being considered as part of the EA planning process.

Advantages and disadvantages to the environment resulting from the undertaking and alternative methods are evaluated for the construction, operation and maintenance phases of the EWT project in Section 24 of the amended EA, with additional details in Appendices 3-I to 3-III, which outline the Alternative Route Assessment, Alternative Route Assessment Around Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves and the criteria and indicators used in the Alternatives Assessment.

The amended EA considered criteria and indicators that have physical, biological, or socio-economic importance and have the potential to change as a result of the undertaking. Criteria and indicators were identified through engagement with Indigenous communities and project stakeholders (property owners, interest holders, and regulators). Additionally the following environmental factors were considered in the identification of criteria and indicators for the amended EA:

  • presence, abundance and distribution within, or relevance to, the area associated with the EWT project
  • potential for interaction with the EWT project and sensitivity to effects
  • umbrella or keystone species with potential to represent a broad range of potential effects
  • conservation status or concern
  • uniqueness or rarity
  • likelihood of an indirect effect on an associated criterion (i.e. a link exists between the affected criterion and another criterion, such as water quality affecting fish habitat)

Indigenous perspectives regarding criteria selected for the assessment and raised during the course of the EA process were included in the criteria-specific assessments and are outlined in Section 2 of the amended EA. A summary of the input received specific to recommended revisions and how it was incorporated to revise the criteria and indicators is provided in section 5.1.1 (Table 5-2) of the amended EA.

Once the potential environmental effects were identified, mitigation measures were applied in order to identify ways to avoid or minimize potential negative effects or enhance positive effects. Mitigation measures were developed based on an understanding of the environmental setting, input from consultation and engagement activities and design and EWT project planning.

For additional information about the evaluation of environmental effects please refer to Section 5 of the amended EA (Environmental Effects Assessment Approach).

3.1.2 Consultation

Consultation with interested persons is a cornerstone of the EA planning process; and also a legal requirement of the EAA. Section 5.1 of the EAA requires that consultation with such persons as may be interested should take place during the preparation of an EA and that it is the responsibility of the proponent to engage and consult with all relevant government agencies, Indigenous communities and members of the public during the preparation of an EA report. It is important to note that this consultation must also be completed in accordance with the consultation plan set forth in an approved ToR.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Indigenous communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR have been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. NextBridge may also continue consulting with stakeholders after submission of the EA in order to respond to any additional questions or issues.

NextBridge’s consultation activities are described in Section 2 of the amended EA with a record of consultation for the ToR and amended EA being provided in Appendices 2-II and 2-III. A summary of key issues raised in the comment period can be found in Section 3.2 of this review.

Government Review Team

NextBridge consulted the Government Review Team (GRT) throughout the preparation of the draft, final and amended EA. NextBridge identified key government stakeholders that may have an interest in the proposed project. For the amended ToR, EA and amended EA the ministry led the consultation process with the GRT based on the list identified by NextBridge.

The amended ToR document was made available for GRT review on review for a 30-day period from February 28, 2014 to March 31, 2014. The proponent used several engagement methods to consult including letters, phone calls, meetings and workshops.

Following formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members from various agencies were provided copies of the EA for their review during the seven-week comment period, which began July 25, 2017 and ended September 12, 2017. All comments received were forwarded by the ministry to NextBridge for a response.

The final EA report was amended to address concerns identified by the GRT and Indigenous communities. On February 16, 2018 the amended EA was submitted for a 30-day comment period, which ended March 29, 2018. The amended EA was circulated to the GRT for their review and comment.

During the consultation period for the Final and amended EA, NextBridge hosted workshops with the GRT to address specific concerns. The following ministries were involved in one or all of the discussions: the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Ministry of Energy (now the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM)), and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS).

The general issues addressed at these meetings and workshops were focused on the comments provided by each ministry and NextBridge’s responses.

MNRF discussed the quality of baseline data, site-specific mitigation, access roads and Indigenous consultation.

MECP discussed the effects assessment of the EA methods, quality of baseline data, Incorporation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Indigenous consultation.

MTCS noted outstanding issues with the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and field studies.

ENDM discussed Indigenous consultation and the effects assessment of the EA methods.

These meetings and workshops took place roughly between March 2017 to June 2018. Over the course of this time, the above-mentioned ministries participated as it pertained to their mandate. As such not all the ministries participated in each meeting.

There continues to be ongoing consultation between the GRT and NextBridge to resolve key concerns/issues and to work towards resolution in the permitting phase. A summary of key issues raised can also be found in Section 3.2.1 of this review. All comments received on the amended EA and NextBridge’s responses to comments from the GRT can be found in Appendix B of this review.

A summary of the consultation process carried out with members of the GRT during the preparation of the amended EA, as well as an overview of the comments received and NextBridge’s responses can be found in Section 2.0 of the amended EA.

All comments received by the ministry for the amended EA were forwarded to NextBridge for a response. Summaries of the comments received from members of the GRT, along with the responses provided by NextBridge, can be found in Appendix B of this review.

Public consultation

Members of the public, which includes the general public, communities, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA. NextBridge carried out consultation with members of the public in a variety of ways, including: holding public open houses; written correspondence; newspaper notifications of EA milestones, in-person meetings with interested persons; and, posting information and materials to the project website (http://www.nextbridge.ca/project_info). The objective of public consultation was to inform and seek input from interested members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking.

During development of the ToR in late 2013, NextBridge was informed of concerns related to the originally proposed reference route in the Township of Dorion and the route near Loon Lake. NextBridge worked closely with representatives from the Township and community, property owners and interested stakeholders, and a local concerned citizen’s group to address and mitigate these concerns. Additional community meetings, including a Town Hall, were held in order to better understand the concerns that were brought forward by project stakeholders, members of the public and Indigenous communities. Additional route proposals were developed and studied through these interactions. The result of these engagement activities was a change in the route.

Supporting the amended ToR and EA reports, four rounds of public open houses were held in different communities in the EWT project area during the EA process, to solicit comments, feedback, concerns, and questions from the public regarding the EWT project. Public open houses offered an opportunity for interested individuals and parties to meet EWT project staff, hear firsthand how the project could potentially affect them both positively and negatively, to ask questions, and to provide local knowledge about the issues and features that should be considered in the EA planning process. NextBridge representatives attended the public open houses to gain a better understanding of interested parties’ concerns. Staff representing the IESO were also in attendance at many events to answer questions related to the EWT project need and rationale.

The first two rounds of public open houses were held in six locations, and round three and round four were held in eight locations. Public open house round one occurred during development of the ToR and details of those events can be found in the Record of Consultation in the approved ToR (refer to Appendix 2-II). The subsequent public open houses were held during the development of the EA and details of those events can be found in the Record of Consultation in the amended EA (refer to Appendix 2-III).

Notes and comment forms submitted by attendees were entered into the stakeholder tracking database, and responses and appropriate actions were taken as required. Summaries of these comments, responses, and actions taken can be found in Appendix 2-III of the amended EA. Public materials were provided at each open house and included EWT project overview panels, fact sheets, and frequently asked questions. Printed copies of the material were also made available to attendees at the public open houses and posted on the EWT project website.

As part of the formal submission of the EA report, members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the EA during the 7-week inspection period. The inspection period was coordinated by the ministry, and members of the public were asked to provide any comments directly to the ministry for consideration.

For the submission of the amended EA report, members of the public were provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the amended EA between February 16 and March 29, 2018. As with the EA, the amended EA inspection period was coordinated by the ministry.

For both the EA and amended EA, the ministry received one (1) letter of support from the Municipality of Dorion Township, as well as comments from the Rendezvous Cross Country Ski Club (RCCSC) and the Nor’wester Voyageur Trail Club (NVTC) during the formal inspection period on the EA and amended EA report. Summaries of the comments received on the amended EA from members of the public, along with the responses provided by NextBridge, can be found in Appendix B of this review. It is important to note that while members of the public were able to provide comments on both the final and amended EA, only the amended EA comments have been provided in Appendix B of this review as the amended EA addressed concerns brought forth in the final EA. For further details on the comments provided and NextBridge’s responses on the final EA please refer to Appendices 1-IV-A, 1-IV-B and 1-IV-C of the amended EA.

A summary of the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with members of the public, the comments received and the responses submitted by NextBridge can be found in Section 2 of the amended EA.

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to public consultation, consultation is also completed with Indigenous communities as part of the environmental assessment process. In accordance with Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, the provincial Crown has a duty to consult with First Nation and Métis communities when it has knowledge of established or credibly asserted Aboriginal or treaty rights that could be adversely impacted by any decisions or actions made by the Crown. Although the Crown remains responsible for ensuring the adequacy of consultation with potentially affected communities, it may delegate the procedural aspects of this consultation process to project proponents. For the purposes of the EA process for the proposed EWT project, on November 4, 2013 the former Ministry of Energy, on behalf of the Crown, formally delegated the procedural aspects of rights-based consultation to NextBridge via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

In addition to the duty to consult required under the Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, the EAA also requires consultation with any Indigenous community that may have an interest that could be potentially affected by the proposed EWT project that is subject to approval under the EAA. The purpose of which is to confirm whether a specific Aboriginal interest may be potentially affected; and, to determine, in consultation with the affected community, how a potentially affected interest should be considered and addressed.

While the ministry remains responsible for ensuring the adequacy of consultation with potentially affected Indigenous communities as part of the EA process, NextBridge is required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Crown, how communities’ concerns were identified, considered and addressed as part of the EA planning and decision-making process. The ministry alongside the ENDM will review and assess the information presented in the EA to determine if the consultation activities carried out have adequately identified, considered and addressed Aboriginal rights, treaty rights and interests of each First Nation and Métis community that may be potentially impacted by the EWT project. The conclusions of this review will be considered by the Minister when making a decision about the EWT project.

The following Indigenous communities were identified as having an interest in the EWT project or having an asserted or established treaty right that may be impacted by the EWT project:

  • Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek First Nation (Lake Nipigon Ojibway)
  • Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek (Sand Point First Nation)
  • Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation (Rocky Bay)
  • Fort William First Nation
  • Ginoogaming First Nation
  • Long Lake No. 58 First Nation
  • Michipicoten First Nation
  • Missanabie Cree First Nation
  • Ojibways of Batchewana
  • Ojibways of Garden River
  • Ojibways of Pic River (Heron Bay First Nation)
  • Pays Plat First Nation
  • Pic Mobert First Nation
  • Red Rock Indian Band
  • Greenstone Métis Council
  • Red Sky Independent Métis Nation
  • Superior North Shore Métis Council
  • Thunder Bay Métis Council

The Indigenous communities identified were initially engaged by NextBridge to establish appropriate contacts and to confirm interest in the proposed EWT project. Additionally, Indigenous communities were able to work with NextBridge to confirm a process for sharing information during the preparation of the EA report including TEK and Traditional Land and Resource Use (TLRU) studies and capacity funding for review of the EA reports.

In January 2014, NextBridge filed an Aboriginal Consultation Plan with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), which was created to guide the consultation and engagement activities with the 18 Indigenous communities identified above. An overview of the consultation process with Indigenous communities is outlined below, for further details please refer to Appendix 2-I-B of the amended EA report.

During the EA process Indigenous communities were formally invited, by way of letter or mailed notices, to attend each of the four public open houses that were held during the preparation of the EA report. In addition, NextBridge held a number of specific meetings with Indigenous communities to provide opportunities for community members and leadership to receive project information and ask questions about the EA process and the proposed EWT project. Issues identified by communities during the preparation of the EA report were noted and incorporated where appropriate in the document. At the end of each phase of the EA process (e.g. amended ToR, EA, amended EA) NextBridge circulated a copy of the EA documents to each Indigenous community for their review and comment and where requested, met with communities to discuss issues.

On December 19, 2016 the draft EA was submitted to the ministry and circulated to Indigenous communities for their review and comment. Subsequently on July 25, 2017, the EA was formally submitted to the ministry for a 7-week comment period which ended September 12, 2017. Indigenous communities were provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the final EA with the inspection period consultation being coordinated by the ministry. Indigenous communities were asked to provide any comments directly to the ministry for consideration. The ministry received a total of eight (8) submissions from the following Indigenous communities:

  • Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek First Nation (Lake Nipigon Ojibway)
  • Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek (Sand Point First Nation)
  • Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation (Rocky Bay)
  • Fort William First Nation
  • Ojibways of Batchewana
  • Pays Plat First Nation
  • Red Rock Indian Band

The following communities provided comments via the Métis Nation of Ontario and their consultants:

  • Superior North Shore Métis Council
  • Thunder Bay Métis Council
  • Greenstone Métis Council

Generally, comments submitted by Indigenous communities focused on the EA methodology for the EWT project, inadequate data for baseline environmental conditions, insufficient identification of mitigation, insufficient consultation and lack of transparency where information provided by Indigenous communities (e.g. Traditional Land Use Studies, Traditional Ecological Knowledge) had been incorporated into the EA.

The draft EA was provided to Indigenous communities between December 2016 and March 2017 however some communities were unable to provide comments on the draft EA during this period and before the start of the formal EA comment period in July, 2017. Resulting from this, the ministry expressed concerns to NextBridge regarding the sufficiency of consultation with Indigenous communities for the final EA report.

As such, the ministry reviewed the EA report and concluded that the EA methodology and Indigenous consultation did not meet EAA requirements. On October 2, 2017, NextBridge notified the ministry of its intent to amend the EA report in order to ensure ministry and Indigenous community concerns are addressed and accounted for in an amended EA report.

On February 16, 2018 NextBridge distributed an amended EA to address feedback received from the GRT, Indigenous communities, and interested stakeholders on the draft and final EA. The following Indigenous communities had comments on the amended EA:

  • Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek First Nation (AZA)
  • Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinaabek First Nation (BZA)
  • Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek (BNA)
  • Fort William First Nation (FWFN)
  • Michipicoten First Nation
  • Red Rock Indian Band (RRIB)
  • Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)
  • Superior North Shore Métis Council
  • Thunder Bay Métis Council
  • Greenstone Métis Council
  • Red Sky Métis Independent Nation
  • Pays Plat First Nation
  • Pic Mobert First Nation

At the conclusion of the inspection period on the EA and amended EA, the ministry contacted each of the Indigenous communities that participated in the EA process to confirm that each community received the project information that was circulated as part of the EA consultation process; and, to verify that those communities have no outstanding issues or concerns that they would like to submit to the ministry for consideration when making a decision about the proposed EWT project.

All comments received by the ministry on the amended EA were forwarded to NextBridge for a response. Once responses to comments were provided by NextBridge, the ministry forwarded these to communities for their review. Key issues raised by Indigenous communities and the proponent’s responses are summarized in Section 3.2 of this review. A summary of all comments received and the responses by NextBridge can be found in Appendix B of this review.

Two communities identified further concerns following NextBridge’s response to their concerns on the amended EA. These communities and their concerns are:

  • Michipicoten First Nation raised concerns regarding potential effects to watercourses, fish and fish habitat, species at risk, integration of traditional knowledge into the amended EA, air quality, loss of vegetation and use of herbicides, as well as participation in archaeological studies
  • Red Sky Métis Independent Nation raised concerns with participation in archaeological studies, and the Crown’s Duty to Consult obligations

A meeting was held in July 2018 with Michipicoten First Nation to discuss their concerns. NextBridge provided an updated response table (Appendix B of this review) that is currently under review by Michipicoten First Nation. The ministry continues to work with Michipicoten First Nation and the Red Sky Métis Independent Nation to ensure their concerns are addressed prior to a Minister’s decision on the proposed EWT project.

A summary of the consultation process with Indigenous communities carried out during the preparation of the EA with the comments received and the responses by NextBridge are detailed in Section 2.2 of the amended EA report.

Conclusion

Ministry conclusions on the conformance with ToR and EAA

The amended EA provides a clear and detailed explanation of the EA decision-making process that was followed to arrive at the conclusions that support the selection of the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought. The description of the EA decision-making process was presented in a manner that is easily understood and, sets forth a logical process that allows for interested parties to follow and trace the results of the EA process using the evaluation approaches and methodology.

The summary in the amended EA provides sufficient information about the potential effects, both direct and indirect, that may result from the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of each alternative being considered as part of the EA process on each of the components of the environment, as defined under the EAA.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation undertaken by NextBridge and the documentation of consultation provided in the amended EA given that consultation and engagement with EWT project stakeholders and Indigenous communities is ongoing. The amended EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities and that NextBridge provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Indigenous communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA reports. In response to concerns from the GRT, public, and Indigenous communities on consultation and the lack of information on potential effects and mitigation measures, NextBridge made a number of commitments for ongoing work, including ongoing consultation with Indigenous communities and the completion of detailed project plans, if EA approval is granted. Key issues and how they were addressed are detailed in Section 3.2 of this review.

3.2 Key issues

Key issues regarding the EA process and undertaking completed by NextBridge for the proposed EWT project were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the amended EA review and comment period. A number of key issues were identified by government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public in their respective reviews of the EWT project throughout the EA process. A summary of these key issues and how they were addressed are discussed below. All comments, including NextBridge’s responses, can be found in Appendix B of this review.

For additional details on the comments received from government agencies, Indigenous communities and interested members of the public during the EA planning process, please refer to the Record of Consultation (RoC) that was submitted with the amended EA (Appendix 2-III).

Below is a discussion of the key issues for the EWT project relating to broader concerns of the project such as consultation and engagement, monitoring, Indigenous consultation and EA methods. Please note that key issues specific to technical concerns brought forth by the GRT and Indigenous communities are discussed below.

3.2.1 Engagement and consultation with indigenous communities

Government Review Team comments

In order to resolve outstanding issues and communicate EWT project updates to Indigenous communities there is a need for ongoing consultation after the EA decision is made. NextBridge suggested developing an Aboriginal Community Advisory Board (ACAB) as the mechanism to facilitate this consultation with communities. MECP requested NextBridge to provide a planning document which further details the mandate of the Aboriginal Community Advisory Board (ACAB) as well as other pertinent details.

In response, NextBridge provided MECP with a copy of the ACAB terms of reference which included information about frequency of meetings as well as the mandate for the ACAB, roles and responsibilities, geographic scope, honoraria and circulation of ACAB related documents. The ACAB will be submitting minutes from the meetings to MECP and NextBridge will be responsible for distributing information. Currently, consultation with Indigenous communities regarding the ACAB is ongoing and MECP is being provided with updates on a frequent basis.

Indigenous comments

Indigenous communities identified concerns regarding the lack of consultation by NextBridge on the Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP), the Environmental Emergency Response Plan, and the Vegetation Management Program. Additionally, a communication protocol for contamination and spills, blasting and temporary work spaces was requested by several Indigenous communities.

Communities also indicated that at times NextBridge has not completed adequate consultation as the Proponent has signed an economic agreement with Supercom. To address these concerns NextBridge revised their commitment list (App 23-I) to include:

  • ensuring all communities will be informed of procurement and training opportunities and that NextBridge will facilitate discussions between each community and Supercom
  • implementing access restrictions in consultation with communities as requested and developing a road use agreement for roads located on Reserve Lands
  • notifying communities of any contamination and spills, blasting and temporary work spaces that will occur during the project lifecycle
  • updating the CEPP prior to and during construction and seeking input on mitigation measures from specific communities to address their concerns
  • discussing the Environmental Emergency Response Plan that is being developed by the contractor during future permitting workshops with Indigenous communities and relevant agencies
  • providing a draft framework for an herbicide plan to Indigenous communities for consultation and incorporating feedback before the finalization of the plan
  • conducting permitting workshops with Indigenous communities prior to submission to finalize permit applications

The ministry is considering recommending a condition that requires NextBridge to maintain on-going consultation with Indigenous communities to reinforce NextBridge’s commitments noted above, including the establishment of the ACAB. This would allow on-going participation by communities to ensure the review of plans related to the construction and operation of the EWT project.

The ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval that requires NextBridge to update its Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) prior to construction for submission to MTCS. In addition the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval that reinforces NextBridge’s commitment to hire Indigenous monitors and notify communities if artifacts are found.

3.2.2 Traditional knowledge

Government Review Team comments

Several Indigenous communities noted concerns regarding the consideration of TEK/ TLRU information in the EA planning process as they were unable to submit this information by the time the draft and final EA were submitted.

MECP requested that NextBridge provide a stand-alone TEK/TLRU protocol document that details what actions will be taken by NextBridge to ensure that TEK/TLRU information is considered in the planning and design process for the EWT project.

Indigenous comments

Indigenous communities noted that portions of their TEK/TLRU studies were not completed; therefore, it was suggested that NextBridge has inadequate data concerning sensitive and traditionally significant areas.

Indigenous communities also expressed concerns over the loss of access to spiritually significant land, and that ongoing consultation on EWT project activities that may impact traditional land use, including harvesting without impediment during herbicide application or construction, would be required. Communities specifically requested that NextBridge confirm that Indigenous land users will be allowed access to all areas of the project footprint during all project phases, except when health and safety is a concern. There were also potential concerns that increased traffic in traditional use areas will impact access to local resources.

NextBridge addressed these concerns by revising its commitments list in the amended EA with the following commitments:

  • developing a standalone TEK/TLRU protocol document with information on the actions NextBridge will take to incorporation TEK/TLRU into the planning and design process for the EWT project
  • working with Indigenous communities on an Access Management Agreement and ongoing consultation with communities throughout the EWT project
  • notify Indigenous communities prior to construction so they may harvest in advance of construction and herbicide application
  • developing a TEK/TLRU protocol document to outline how TEK/TLRU was integrated into the EA planning process

The ministry is considering recommending a condition that requires NextBridge to develop a planning document which outlines the protocol that NextBridge will use to accept and consider TEK information in the development and operation of the EWT project. This would allow on-going participation by Indigenous communities to ensure relevant TEK is considered throughout construction and operation of the EWT project.

3.2.3 Cultural heritage/archeology

Government Review Team comments

The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) recommended additional cultural heritage resources and landscapes that should be included in the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The MTCS also noted missing information regarding the methods used for the assessment and justification evaluation and conclusions in the HIA.

Additionally, Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) noted that First Nations should be consulted in regards to identifying potential archeological resources on reserve, as the MTCS database should not be considered a comprehensive database for Federal Lands.

The MECP continues to work with MTCS to address the concerns noted in its comments on the amended EA. Comments from MTCS and the amended EA, as well as NextBridge’s responses are provided in Appendix B of this review.

Indigenous comments

Indigenous Communities noted that there was no indication that TEK was considered in the assessment of possible adverse effects to archaeologically significant areas. A majority of communities indicated that they require increased participation and consultation on additional field studies, monitoring programs and in the development of the Discovery of Heritage or Archaeological Resource Contingency Plan.

Indigenous communities also noted a lack of Indigenous engagement on the Stage 1 Archaeological Background Study which should be addressed prior to construction through the implementation of the following:

  • NextBridge has committed to ongoing engagement and consultation with Indigenous communities on archeological concerns and commits to incorporating Traditional Knowledge provided to NextBridge into future assessments
  • NextBridge is committed to offering monitoring opportunities to potentially impacted First Nations and will notify Indigenous communities of the discovery and investigation schedule of any previously undiscovered artifacts
  • NextBridge will also engage concerned communities prior to archeological surveys on the community’s reserve lands and will offer monitoring opportunities to potentially impacted Indigenous community members

The ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval that requires NextBridge to update its HIA prior to construction for submission to MTCS. In addition the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval that reinforces NextBridge’s commitment noted above requiring First Nation monitors and notifying communities if artifacts are found.

3.2.4 Site specific mitigation/EA methodology

Government Review Team comments

During the review of the draft and final EA, the MECP and the MNRF noted several concerns relating to the assessment methodology used to determine potential effects and suitable corresponding mitigation. In particular, there were concerns with the lack of information provided and the resulting assessment of impacts and mitigation for the operation and maintenance phases of the EWT project, as well as decommissioning of temporary project infrastructure (e.g. access roads, laydown yards and construction camps).

In response to these concerns, NextBridge committed to the development of detailed project plans (DPPs) for each line segment of the EWT project. These DDPs would document verified desktop information through field studies, note site specific mitigation, where required, and incorporate TEK. NextBridge plans to use pre-construction field reconnaissance to identify sensitive ecosystem features, environmental constraints and unexpected environmental conditions. The DPPs will outline the process for field reconnaissance and the personnel involved in this process including opportunities for participation from Indigenous community members.

NextBridge has committed to finalizing the DPPs prior to construction and will distribute these to Indigenous communities as well as the MECP and MNRF for their review prior to applying for permits and approvals.

Indigenous comments

Several Indigenous communities expressed concerns on the reliance of desktop surveys as opposed to in field multi-season surveys. Indigenous communities requested that additional fish sampling be conducted along watercourses that are not clearly defined. Communities outlined the need for detailed multi-season surveys for wildlife and species at risk in the study area.

To address concerns from the GRT and Indigenous communities, NextBridge revised its commitment list in the amended EA to include the following commitments:

  • completing fish and fish habitat surveys where culverts are proposed and completing the surveys prior to permitting (pre-construction wildlife surveys are planned for 2018 to meet regulatory and permitting requirements)
  • providing detailed construction schedule and design information, as well as conducting additional field studies required for permitting
  • where appropriate, provide updated mitigation or commitments in relevant permit applications for consultation with the MNRF
  • prepare detailed project plans (DPPs) to provide additional information relating to site-specific mitigation for specific segments of the EWT project

The ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing NextBridge’s commitment of the completion of operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans, referred to as DPPs to provide sufficient information relating to all project components and all project lifecycles. These plans would need to be prepared prior the issuance of permits and authorizations for the construction of the project and also be distributed to Indigenous communities for review and integrate TEK, where relevant.

3.2.5 Fisheries and water crossings (fish and fish habitat)

Government Review Team comments

The MNRF requested that a protocol for assessment and management of unmapped streams during all phases of the EWT project be developed and that a commitment in the amended EA be made to develop an unmapped streams assessment. The MNRF also requested clarification on how overhead cable infrastructure installation will be achieved and advised that any water crossing structure placed within the ROW will require authorization from MNRF.

The MNRF expressed concern that the CEPP has contradictory messaging around fording of streams, snow fill ice bridges or creating ice dams and requested a commitment that there will be no fording of water courses on the ROW or on access to the ROW for the operations/maintenance phases of this project unless approved by MNRF.

The MECP noted that due to the large number and variability of water crossings it would be beneficial to identify potentially problematic sites as well as provide more detail for both standard protocols and the proposed mitigation measures. The MECP recommended that all waterbodies and watercourses encountered within the EWT project footprint be considered as potential fish habitat as the EWT project footprint overlaps the endemic range of brook trout and Lake Superior coaster brook trout.

Indigenous comments

Indigenous communities cited concerns about the data used to determine appropriate water crossing methods, specifically the lack of multi-season field reconnaissance. Communities requested that NextBridge provide sufficient time and funds to review the permit applications for these structures. In addition, Indigenous communities recommended that channel alignment and changes to the cross section be avoided as much as possible to ensure canoe access, connectivity for fish passage and reduced flood risk.

Indigenous communities also indicated concerns over federally and provincially protected species at risk as they are a staple of their Indigenous diet and are of special interest to the community. Indigenous communities requested that surveys for fish and species at risk be conducted as a part of summer 2018 field work, in addition NextBridge should consider seasonal restocking of fish species that are of special interest to the community.

Indigenous communities noted that there will likely be disruption to the bed and banks of waterbodies during implementation of certain structures which will result in disturbances to fish habitat. Furthermore, it was suggested that when installing or removing culverts, NextBridge should isolate creeks, divert water around the isolation then place crossing structure and backfill to prevent direct fish mortality from sediment placement and in water works.

NextBridge addressed these concerns by revising its commitments list in the amended EA with the following commitments:

  • pre-construction site reconnaissance surveys for undocumented water bodies in the EWT project site will be completed prior to construction of each segment to inform the design of crossing structures and to support the necessary permits and approvals for the EWT project
  • conductor stringing (i.e. overhead cable infrastructure installation) will be completed using helicopters
  • required authorization will be sought from the appropriate regulatory authorities (i.e. MNRF, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and/or Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA)) for waterbody crossing structures installed for the EWT project
  • prior to construction, a site reconnaissance and field program will be completed to survey fish and fish habitat to inform the design of crossing structures
  • the CEPP will be updated to include the mitigation measures and conditions from letter(s) of advice and permit(s)
  • an Undocumented Water Body Discovery Contingency Plan will be developed as part of the CEPP to address the effect of changing hydrological conditions on water crossings
  • standard protocols and best management practices as well as MNRF timing windows will be followed
  • the CEPP will be revised with additional mitigation measures and approval conditions and provided to regulators no later than 30 days prior to construction

The ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing NextBridge’s commitment to complete pre-construction site reconnaissance surveys as well as the completion of operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans (i.e. detailed project plans) to provide sufficient information relating to all project components and all project phases. There may also be a condition noting that no fording of watercourses on the ROW or on accesses to the ROW for the operations and maintenance phases of this project will be allowed unless approved by MNRF.

3.2.6 Species at risk (wildlife and wildlife habitat)

Government Review Team comments

The MNRF identified several items requiring clarification, as well as information gaps in the amended EA as it relates to species at risk (SAR). The MNRF also noted that the Environmental Protection Plan was deficient in terms of identifying species at risk during the construction and operation phases of the proposed EWT project.

The MNRF requested a commitment within the amended EA ensuring the assessment of SAR occurrences and its habitat at all stages of the EWT project. Also, it was noted that clarification was required as it relates to descriptions of caribou habitat connectivity, wintering and refuge. The MNRF also requested that the amended EA contain specific mitigation measures related to timing restrictions in areas with SAR and that additional information on the assessment of alternatives be provided as part of Endangered Species Act permits.

To address these requests from the MNRF, NextBridge revised its commitment list in the amended EA to include the following commitments:

  • complete operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans (i.e. detailed project plans) to provide sufficient information relating to all project components and all project lifecycles as it relates to SAR
  • undertake a pre-construction reconnaissance to ground truth structure placement and identify SAR habitat
  • work with the MNRF to ensure that relevant permits are obtained and requirements are met to address impacts to caribou habitat
  • NextBridge revised the base map of the environmental alignment sheets and access and construction maps to include caribou habitat and noted that these will be provided to applicable regulators 30 days prior to construction

Wildlife and wildlife habitat

Indigenous comments

Indigenous communities requested that NextBridge commit to a long term wildlife monitoring plan to minimize the effect on big game, fur-bearing mammals and beavers which should include a predatory sightline reduction plan to mitigate potential effects on moose populations. In addition, it was requested that NextBridge should provide quantifiable targets to communities to determine the effectiveness of vehicle collision mitigations.

The need for investment in reclamation research and monitoring for woodland caribou recovery, including incorporating TEK and Indigenous-led mitigation efforts into the decommissioning plan, was noted by Indigenous communities. Also, it was noted that pre-construction, detailed formal surveys should be conducted for bald eagle nests, nests of other species at risk, and culturally important species.

NextBridge maintained that MNRF will conduct monitoring of large mammals, including moose and caribou. However, information on mitigation measures and the Decommissioning Report will be shared through the existing relationship framework. NextBridge stated that it will also share a final Traffic Management Plan through the existing relationship framework. Locations of bald eagle nests will be validated prior to construction using the Nest Sweep Protocol included in the CEPP. Pre-construction surveys are also planned for 2018.

The ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing NextBridge’s commitment to complete operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans (i.e. detailed project plans) to provide sufficient information relating to all project components and all project lifecycles as it relates to SAR, wetlands, wildlife and wildlife habitat. Additionally the ministry may consider recommending a condition of approval reinforcing NextBridge’s commitment to complete pre-construction reconnaissance studies.

3.2.7 Vegetation/herbicide application

Government Review Team comments

The MECP recommended a commitment to generally use mechanical methods whenever possible, and to only using chemical means when necessary when removing unwanted vegetation. Also, the MECP recommended including traditionally or culturally important plants or ecological communities (e.g. blueberries) as areas near which herbicide spraying is restricted.

Indigenous comments

Several communities requested that the proponent refrain from using chemical vegetation management given the effect of herbicides on harvesting and traditional land use. If spraying is absolutely necessary then the community must be provided notice so traditional land users may harvest before spraying occurs. Indigenous communities have also requested that NextBridge refrain from herbicide application within 30 metres of water bodies.

To address these requests, NextBridge has committed to implementing a Vegetation Management Program that includes the selective use of herbicides. NextBridge also committed to not using herbicides in sensitive areas including reserve lands, provincial parks, within 30 metres of water bodies and certain other edible and medicinal plant harvesting areas communities have identified. NextBridge has also committed to notifying communities in a timely manner (30 days) of EWT project activities that may affect communities, including the potential use of herbicides. A draft Vegetation Management Program, which includes herbicide management, was added to the Operations Environmental Management Plan (Appendix 4-III) of the amended EA.

The ministry is considering recommending a condition that requires NextBridge to use mechanical methods to remove unwanted vegetation whenever possible, and only use chemical means when deemed necessary in consultation with Indigenous communities.

3.3 Conclusion

NextBridge has provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and responses are located in the amended EA report (Appendices 1-IV-A, 1-IV-B and 1-IV-C) as well as Appendix B of this review. Ministry staff are satisfied that NextBridge has met the requirements of the amended ToR and EAA for the components of the amended EA raised in the comments.

As a result of comments received during both the 2017 final EA review and the 2018 amended EA review, NextBridge made a number of commitments, including those that address provincial and federal technical concerns and Indigenous concerns. NextBridge also included commitments that would address future comments that may arise, for example through future approval applications, in order to respond to any outstanding concerns with the proposed EWT project. NextBridge’s Commitment List can be found in Appendix 23-I (Commitments in the EA Report) in the amended EA along with associated revisions to the commitments based on GRT and Indigenous review.

During the ministry review comment period and prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Minister about this amended EA, conditions specific to the EWT project may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected. Aside from standard conditions of approval, below is a preliminary list of potential project-specific conditions that may be recommended to further support the commitments made in the amended EA:

  • post the final amended EA with all accompanying documents on NextBridge’s website for the life of the project
  • meet all commitments contained in the amended EA and the Commitments List
  • develop a comprehensive monitoring program and mitigation measures through consultation with relevant government agencies and Indigenous communities, in support of future permitting applications
  • develop a public and Indigenous communications plan for ongoing notification and communication throughout all project phases, which will include protocols for accepting and considering TEK information in the development and operation of the EWT project
  • provide opportunities for Indigenous communities to be involved in environmental monitoring
  • develop operation, maintenance and decommissioning plans (for example, DPPs) to provide sufficient information relating to all project components and all project lifecycles as it relates to SAR, wetlands, wildlife, wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat
  • undertake on-going consultation with Indigenous communities to reinforce NextBridge’s commitments including the establishment of the ACAB
  • update the HIA prior to construction for submission to MTCS and provide opportunities for Indigenous monitors as well as notify communities if artifacts are found
  • no fording of water courses on the ROW or on accesses to the ROW for the operations and maintenance phases of this project unless approved by MNRF
  • use mechanical methods to remove unwanted vegetation whenever possible and only using chemical means when deemed necessary, in consultation with Indigenous communities

4. Summary of the ministry review

The review outlines the ministry’s analysis of NextBridge’s amended EA for the proposed EWT project. This review concludes that the amended EA complies with the requirements of the approved amended ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The amended EA has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the EWT project.

The review concludes that the amended EA assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking (i.e. reference route alignment, Dorion/Loon Lake reroute), assessed the potential environmental effects of the proposed EWT project, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed EWT project.

The ministry is satisfied that NextBridge provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders and Indigenous communities and organizations to comment during the development of the amended EA. Concerns raised by the GRT and the public have been addressed by NextBridge or a commitment has been made to address them through additional work that will be completed as part of future approval requirements.

If the proposed EWT project is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions that are included in an approval such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all phases of the EWT project. There may also be specific conditions imposed on this proposed EWT project, if warranted. A preliminary list can be found in Section 3.3 of this review.

5. What happens now

The review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Indigenous communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed EWT project, the amended EA and/or the ministry review. At this time, anyone can make a written request that the Minister refer either all or part of the amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if their environmental concerns have not been considered.

At the end of the review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the amended ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed EWT project should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the amended ToR, the amended EA, the review, the comments submitted during the amended EA and the review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

  • give approval to proceed with the undertaking
  • give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
  • refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire amended EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision. If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, NextBridge will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate the proposed EWT project. Section 1.3.3 of the amended EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

Ministry of Environment, Conversation and Parks (MECP)

  • Permit To Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act if the EWT project water taking (e.g. construction dewatering) takes more than 400,000 litres per day (L/day) of groundwater/stormwater, or registration of the water taking in the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry if water taking is less than 400,000 L/day
  • Environmental Compliance Approvals under the Environmental Protection Act for the following, if required:
    • to enable waste to be transported by haulers from the EWT project work site
    • to enable emissions (e.g. air or noise) from on-site equipment
    • to facilitate stormwater management
    • to facilitate on-site sewage treatment and provision of potable water treatment facilities at construction camps

Ontario Energy Board

Leave to construct approval for the EWT project under section 92 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. This application provides the OEB with an opportunity to review the EWT project’s technical and other components.

Lakehead Region Conservation Authority

Permit for water body and wetland crossings, or any other alteration or interference, within the conservation authority’s jurisdiction under O. Reg. 180/06: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

  • Permit to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 to facilitate the capture and transfer of fish during in-water works such as cofferdam construction
  • Permit to Collect Wildlife for Scientific Purposes under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 to facilitate the capture and transfer of wildlife
  • authorization under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 in the event that EWT project construction or operation is anticipated to impact scheduled species, nesting areas, beavers, or black bears
  • Letter(s) of Advice or permit(s) under section 17 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 if the EWT project affects a listed species or its habitat

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

  • a permit or advice may be required to authorize an activity affecting a species listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act if it is on federal lands or if an activity not on federal lands will affect an aquatic species listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act
  • authorization under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act may be required if the EWT project is unable to completely avoid or mitigate serious harm to commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fisheries

Indigenous Services Canada (formerly INAC)

  • a land use permit or equivalent authorization under Section 28(2) of the Indian Act will be required to use federal lands (i.e. to allow the crossing of First Nation reserves)
  • a Section 67 evaluation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 will be required to provide a permit under the Indian Act to carry out the EWT project on federal land

Environment and Climate Change Canada

  • a permit may be required to authorize an activity that may affect a species at risk or its habitat on federal lands under Section 73 of the Species at Risk Act.
  • a Section 67 evaluation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 will be required to provide a permit under the Species at Risk Act to carry out the EWT project on federal land

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

The EA Code of Practice identifies a process to address minor and major changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and any EA requirements met before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

6. Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, Ontario

The review and notice of completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Thunder Bay District Office
435 James Street South, Suite 331
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 6S7
Tel: 807-475-1724

NextBridge Infrastructure
390 Bay Street, Suite 1720
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2Y2
Tel: 1-888-767-3006

Township of Dorion
170 Dorion Loop Road
Dorion, Ontario
P0T 1K0
Tel: 807-345-8275

Township of Nipigon
52 Front Street
Nipigon, Ontario
P0T 2J0
Tel: 807-887-3135 ext. 123

Town of Marathon
4 Hemlo Drive
P.O. Bag TM
Marathon, Ontario
P0T 2E0
Tel: 807-229-1340

Township of Red Rock
42 Salls Street
Red Rock, Ontario
P0T 2P0
Tel: 807-886-2245 ext. 222

Township of Schreiber
204 Alberta Street
Schreiber, Ontario
P0T 2S0
Tel: 807-824-2711 ext. 225

Municipality of Shuniah
420 Leslie Avenue
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7A 1X8
Tel: 807-683-4540

Township of Terrace Bay
1 Selkirk Avenue
Terrace Bay, Ontario
P0T 2W0
Tel: 807-825-3315 ext. 232

City of Thunder Bay
500 Donald Street East
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 5V3
Tel: 807-625-2238

Municipality of Wawa
40 Broadway Avenue
Wawa, Ontario
P0S 1K0
Tel: 705-856-2244 ext. 223

Township of White River
102 Durham Street
White River, Ontario
P0M 3G0
Tel: 807-822-2450 ext. 206

Brodie Resource Library, Thunder Bay Public Library
216 Brodie Street South
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7E 1C2
Tel: 807-684-6803

County Park Branch, Thunder Bay Public Library
1020 Dawson Road
Thunder Bay, Ontario
P7B 1K6
Tel: 807-684-6803

Dorion Public Library
170 Dorion Loop Road
Dorion, Ontario
P0T 1K0
Tel: 807-857-2289 ext. 1

Nipigon Public Library
52 Front Street
Nipigon, Ontario
P0T 2J0
Tel: 807-887-3135

Red Rock Public Library
42 Salls Street
Red Rock, Ontario
P0T 2P0
Tel: 807-886-2558

Schreiber Public Library
314 Scotia Street
Schreiber, Ontario
P0T 2S0
Tel: 807-824-2477

Terrace Bay Public Library
13 Selkirk Avenue
Terrace Bay, Ontario
P0T 2W0
Tel: 807-825-3315 ext. 222

Marathon Public Library
22 Peninsula Road
Marathon, Ontario
P0T 2E0
Tel: 807-229-0740

Wawa Public Library
40 Broadway Avenue
Wawa, Ontario
P0S 1K0
Tel: 705-856-2244 ext. 291

White River Public Library
123 Superior Street
White River, Ontario
P0M 3G0
Tel: 807-822-1113

7. Making a submission

A five-week public review period will follow publication of this review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Director
Environmental Assessment and Permissions Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: East-West Tie transmission project environmental assessment

Attention: Adam Wright, Special Project Officer

All personal information included in a submission—such as name, address, telephone number and property location of requester—is collected, maintained and disclosed by the ministry for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s. 37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Personal information that is submitted will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless a request is made that personal information remain confidential. For more information, the ministry’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator can be contacted at 416-327-1434.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Regulation 334 Environmental Assessment Act requirements2.(1) Summary of the environmental assessment (EA)EA should contain a brief summary of the environmental assessment organized in accordance with the matters set out in subsection 6.1(2) of the Act.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. Amended EA report contains an Executive Summary in Section 00, which includes an introduction, an overview of the EA methods, the existing conditions, assessment of alternatives, project description, effects assessment, public consultation and Indigenous engagement, environmental and social management planning, commitments, other approvals and benefits of the project.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Regulation 334 Environmental Assessment Act requirements2.(1) List of proponent-led studiesEA should contain a list of studies and reports which are under the control of the proponent and which were done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. Sections 1, 3, 4, 5—Introduction, Evaluation of Alternatives, Project Description, Effects Assessment Approach and Sections 6 to 21 describe existing conditions for each respective criterion and outline the studies that the proponent completed to describe the environment and support the findings of the effects assessment.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Regulation 334 Environmental Assessment Act requirements2.(1) List of additional studiesEA should contain a list of studies and reports done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking of which the proponent is aware and that are not under the control of the proponent.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. Appendix 4-I, List of Studies and Reports, references the reports and studies that the proponent used as secondary data to support the development of the amended EA.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Regulation 334 Environmental Assessment Act requirements2.(1) MapsWhere the environmental assessment is for an undertaking with a fixed location, at least two unbound, well-marked, legible and reproducible maps that are an appropriate size to fit on a 215 millimetre by 280 millimetre page, showing the location of the undertaking and the area to be affected by it. R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 334, section 2(1); Ontario Regulation 263/07, section 1.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. Section 1, Introduction, contains a map of the project location and Sections 6 to 21 contain maps of the study areas for each environmental discipline. Other supporting maps for assessing effects are found throughout the amended EA.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Problem/opportunitiesIdentify an existing problem or opportunity. Purpose of the undertaking: section 6.1(2)(a)The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. If a specific undertaking has been identified provide a brief description.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 1.5 (Need for the Project) provide the rationale and purpose for the project.

The purpose of the undertaking is the expansion of the existing 230 kV East-West Tie, as was identified by the Province of Ontario in order to meet future electricity demand in northwestern Ontario.

The purpose of initiating the EA process is to seek approval under the EAA for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the EWT transmission project.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
AlternativesDescription and statement of the rationale for the alternatives to. Alternative to, section 6.1(2)(b)(iii)“Alternatives to” represent functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. The “do nothing” alternative to should be included in the evaluation and will represent the “bench mark” situation.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. The EA was focused to exclude consideration of “alternatives to” the undertaking as outlined in the approved amended ToR.

The selected “alternative to”, as stated in the approved amended ToR Section 3.1, is the expansion of the existing 230 kV East-West Tie. This project was identified as a priority project in the Ministry of Energy’s Long Term Energy Plan 2013 and again in 2017.

“Alternatives to” the undertaking were discussed in Section 1.2 and 6.1 of the Amended ToR with the “do nothing” alternative method being further assessed in Section 3.2.2 of the amended EA. As requirement of the amended ToR, Section 3.2.4, Table 3-2 of the amended EA provides a listing of advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the project (preferred alternative method) versus the “do nothing” alternative.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
AlternativesDescription and statement of the rationale for the alternative methods. Alternative methods, section 6.1(2)(b)(ii)“Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the preferred “alternative to”. A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. The following alternative methods were evaluated in the amended EA:

  • alternative route segments including local route refinements
  • alternative route assessment (Appendix 3-I)
  • alternative route assessment around provincial parks and conservation reserves (Appendix 3-II)
  • alternative siting of transmission structures including alternative transmission structure types
  • alternative siting of laydown yards and construction camps

The decision-making process explains how NextBridge evaluated the alternative methods to determine the proposed undertaking. Section 5 provides the effects assessment methodology.

Section 3 (Evaluation of Alternatives) and Appendices 3-I and 3-II analyze and compare advantages and disadvantages of the alternative routes and summarize these in Table 4 (Appendix 3-I) and throughout Appendix 3-II.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of the environment, section 6.1(2)(c)(i)Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions. The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area. The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. The existing environment (environmental baseline) is described in Sections 6 to 21 of the amended EA. The existing environment covers the following environmental criteria, which cover the broad definition of the environment (natural, social, economic). These sections also provide the effects assessment for each environmental criterion:

  1. Geology, Soils and Terrain
  2. Surface Water
  3. Groundwater
  4. Air Quality
  5. Greenhouse Gases
  6. Acoustic Environment
  7. Vegetation and Wetlands
  8. Fish and Fish Habitat
  9. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
  10. Archaeological Resources
  11. Cultural Heritage Resources
  12. Indigenous Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes
  13. Socio-economics
  14. Non-traditional Land and Resource Use
  15. Visual Environment
  16. Human Health

The ministry notes that Indigenous traditional use information has not yet been received from all Indigenous communities. As this information is received, NextBridge will need to consider this information prior to construction of the EWT transmission project, including any additional effects and mitigation measures that may be required. As a result, the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval for NextBridge to incorporate Traditional Knowledge (TK) as it is received into the planning and design process as feasible.

There are two types of study areas defined in the amended EA. The Project Footprint includes the approximately 450 kilometres in length and 64 metres in width transmission line right-of-way (ROW), laydown areas, construction camps and access roads where direct impacts are potential.

The local study area (LSA) boundaries extend a specified distance from the project footprint boundary and were specifically defined to capture the direct and immediate indirect effects on a criterion. For example, the LSA for vegetation and wetlands includes the project footprint and extends 1 kilometre from the preferred route ROW boundary and 500 metres from existing access roads that are anticipated to be used by the Project and Project components (new access roads, laydown yards, storage yards, construction easements, and construction camps).

The regional study area (RSA) was used to assess the potential, largely indirect and cumulative effects of the project in the broader, regional context. The LSA is included in the RSA for each criterion. For example, the RSA for vegetation and wetlands extends 5 kilometres from the vegetation and wetlands LSA boundary.

Specific geographical boundaries for each LSA and RSA are provided in Table 5-3 of Section 5.2.2 of the amended EA.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of potential environmental effects, section 6.1(2)(c)(ii)Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed. The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project. Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified. The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so that interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Analysis of the EA

Potential environmental effects are evaluated throughout the amended EA in Sections 6 to 21.

The Amended EA considered both direct and indirect effects of the preferred corridor and corridor alternatives to the environment (as stated in Section 5 with respect to EA methodology and geographical boundaries).

The methodology for assessing effects is provided in Section 5.5 with details for each environmental criterion discussed in Sections 6 to 21. To assess effects, criteria and indicators were used systematically to assess project-environment interactions, effects prior to mitigation, and net effects after mitigation is applied. The significance of net effects was also identified.

A comparative analysis was completed to compare alternatives in order to rank environmental, cost/constructability and technical criteria in order to determine the preferred corridor.

The amended EA reports varying levels of prediction confidence in the effects assessment sections, due in part to the level of detailed information for the baseline environment and the scale of the project as a 450 kilometre long linear corridor. As such, the amended EA took a conservative approach (e.g. precautionary approach) to deal with lower levels of certainty.

Government Review Team (GRT) reviewers and Indigenous communities commented on the lack of site specific information. NextBridge made a commitment to produce Detailed Project Plans to supplement information in the Amended EA, including site specific mitigation, further baseline information and incorporation of TK, which will be provided for review prior to obtaining subsequent permits and approvals for construction. As such, the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing this commitment.

Additional technical work will be required for the various permits and approvals that are required post-EA (e.g. Environmental Compliance Approvals, permits to take water, endangered species permits, land use permits, explosives permits, fisheries permits, etc.).

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the environmental effects. Section 6.1(2)(c)(iii)A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. The potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for the preferred undertaking have been considered throughout the evaluation.

Mitigation measures are described in Sections 6 to 21 and further summarized in the Commitments Table in Section 23, the Construction Environmental Protection Plan (CEPP) and the Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP).

GRT reviewers and Indigenous communities commented on the lack of site specific information. NextBridge made a commitment to produce detailed project plans to supplement information in the amended EA, including site specific mitigation, further baseline information (via pre-construction field reconnaissance) and incorporation of TK, which will be provided for review prior to obtaining subsequent permits and approvals for construction. As such, the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing this commitment.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationEvaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment, section 6.1(2)(d)The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Complete. Advantages and disadvantage to the environment are evaluated throughout the amended EA.

Section 1 (Introduction) and Section 1.5 (Need for Project) outline the need and list the key benefits from the project.

The Executive Summary contains an Evaluation of Alternatives section that provides an overview of the preliminary preferred route and the alternative route segments.

Section 3 (Evaluation of Alternatives) as well as Appendices 3-I and 3-II analyze and compare advantages and disadvantages of the preferred route and the alternative routes. This analysis is summarized in Table 4 (Appendix 3-I) and throughout Appendix 3-II.

MNRF has identified concerns about the replicability, conclusions and advantages/disadvantages of the preferred corridor, citing that additional information was needed to confirm conclusions. In response to these concerns, NextBridge made a commitment to produce detailed project plans to supplement information in the amended EA as requested by the GRT. As such, the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing this commitment.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
EvaluationDescription of consultation with interested stakeholders, section 6.1(2)(e)A description of stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs be documented and should include consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, dates that events occurred, target audience, descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input, comments received.

The EA must identify any Aboriginal consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations.

The EA should outline conflict resolution techniques used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

Analysis of the EA

Complete (as of July, 2018 with ongoing dialogue with Michipicoten First Nations and Red Sky Métis Independent Nation).

Section 2 (Consultation and Engagement Summary) provides a summary of the engagement record with Indigenous communities and other stakeholders, additionally Appendices 2-I to 2-X provide summaries of meetings and copies of correspondence.

Methods used to engage Indigenous communities included:

  • notifications
  • letters
  • phone calls
  • emails
  • meetings
  • workshops
  • information sessions
  • open houses

Methods used to engage government and public stakeholders included:

  • newsletters
  • letters
  • phone calls
  • emails
  • GRT workshops
  • meetings with key regulatory agencies, municipal representatives and NGOs

NextBridge has a project website where all of the related project documents are posted for public, Indigenous and stakeholder access.

The record of consultation (RoC) documents the consultation done throughout the EA process, including the comments raised and how they were addressed. In response to comments, the proponent amended the EA with NextBridge’s responses to GRT, stakeholders and Indigenous communities comments documented in the RoC for the amended EA.

In the amended EA, NextBridge commits to ongoing engagement with Indigenous communities and will collect information (including TK) from communities for incorporation into pre-construction, construction and design processes.

As such, the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing this commitment for ongoing consultation and collection of information including the development of a protocol that outlines how information will be incorporated.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Selection processProposed undertaking. Description and statement of the rationale for the undertaking, section 6.1(2)(b)(i)The description of the undertaking should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA. The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions etc. The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred undertaking.

Analysis of the EA

Complete.

Section 3 (Evaluation of Alternatives) as well as Appendices 3-I and 3-II analyze and compare advantages and disadvantages of the preferred route and the alternative routes, and summarize the results in Table 4 (Appendix 3-I) and throughout Appendix 3-II.

A comparative analysis of alternatives was completed in order to rank environmental, cost/constructability and technical criteria in order to determine the preferred route and the analysis is summarized in Appendix 3-1 (Table 4). This methodology uses a qualitative scoring mechanism in order to justify the preferred corridor for selection.

The amended EA outlines the phases of implementation including construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning (of non-permanent infrastructure).

MNRF requested additional information regarding the locations of temporary and permanent access roads, final footprint for construction camps and laydown areas and the types and locations of water crossings. In response to these requests, NextBridge made a commitment to provide detailed project plans to supplement information in the amended EA. As such, the ministry is considering recommending a condition of approval reinforcing this commitment.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Next steps and additional commitmentsAdditional ToR commitmentsOutline any further commitments made by the proponent in the ToR.

Analysis of the EA

Complete.

Section 1.3.1 (Overview of Provincial Environmental Assessment and Related Approvals) includes a table of Ontario EAA requirements.

Appendix 1-II (Report Concordance with the Terms of Reference) contains a table showing where commitments made in the approved ToR are addressed in the amended EA.

Section 23 (Monitoring, Commitments And Environmental Protection Planning) contains a list of preliminary monitoring programs. Additional information relating to monitoring plan including involvement from Indigenous communities is provided in the detailed project plans.

Table 23-I-1 contains a list of 1174 commitments made in the amended EA.

EA decision making processEAA and ToR requirementsDescription and characteristics of the requirements
Next steps and additional commitmentsAdditional approvalsOutline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

Analysis of the EA

Complete.

Section 1.3 (Regulatory Approvals and Authorizations) and Table 1-1 (Summary of Potential Notifications, Permits, Approvals, or Authorizations Required Prior to Project Construction) contain a comprehensive list of provincial, federal and other agency permits and approvals expected to be required.

Appendix B: Comments and responses on the amended EA

Submissions are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.